Chris Chelios vs. Brad Park

[Canadiens1958]

Point

Haha, that's certainly not a simple question...do you go with two strictly defensive bangers like Horton and Stevens, do you use the Lindros defense, playing keep-away with slick positional players like Lidstrom and Bourque, do you go for the offense-is-the-best-defense route with Orr and whomever, or do you go for guys somewhere in the middle like Robinson, Chelios, Potvin, etc...

Point is that if you are taking about shutdown d-men in such a context Brad Park slips a few spots and it is not a question of luck either.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Point is that if you are taking about shutdown d-men in such a context Brad Park slips a few spots and it is not a question of luck either.

You're missing my #2 choice on that list of examples you provided. After them, I don't think I'd have a preference one way or the other for the next tier of five or so.

 

[Dark Shadows]

All well and good but the issue was shutdown d-men. Leo Boivin and Bob Baun had nasty hip checks but they were not shutdown d-men. Defensive wizard - in a Salming with more grit fashion perhaps.

Simple question - all players in their prime. Defending a one goal lead,less than a minute to go, even strength against a team with Gordie Howe in his prime which two d-men would you pick from amongst Orr, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Horton, Stevens, Chelios, Lidstrom, Bourque,Harvey to defend?

And having seen both play, I consider Park to be nearly equal to Chelios defensive, and superior offensively.

As for who I would pick?
Harvey/Orr without blinking. Harvey is the greatest Defensive Dman of all time, and Orr could play keepaway with the puck for minutes at a time.

Honestly, Park/Chelios would be the last 2 guys I pick from that list.

 

[arrbez]

Again, if you think it's useless, find me other examples of players who did what Park did. I'd be surprised if the list was not mostly HOFers, and upper-tier ones at that.

I can find lots of useless stats that only good players accomplished. It's interesting, but it's not relevant.

Larry Robinson made the playoffs every year of his career. Gretzky didn't do that. Lemieux didn't do that. Howe didn't do that. Peter Forsberg did. Nicklas Lidstrom did. But so what?

Mike Gartner and Jaromir Jagr are the only players to score 30 goals in 15 consecutive years. Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Howe...none of these great goal scorers did that. But so what?

If Mike Bossy scores 2 less goals in 1980, and 2 more goals in 1981, he no longer has a 9 year 50 goal streak, but he's now a 70 goal scorer. Same amount of goals, it just looks different on a stat sheet. Does that change how you view Mike Bossy? Should it?

You see what I mean? It's interesting, but it means nothing more than these guys were excellent players for a long time, who were also in circumstances that led to an interesting but ultimately worthless stat arising.

If Robinson started his career with the California Golden Seals, he likely would have missed the playoffs. If Jaromir Jagr misses 3 games in 2007, he likely never hits that 15th 30 goal season. If Bobby Orr makes a triumphant comeback with the '77 Bruins, Brad Park doesn't lead his defense in scoring 10 years in a row. But so what? Would Park or Jagr or Robinson be a worse player for it?

These kind of stats are arbitrary, and as a whole, fairly useless when put into context. My point is not that it's unimpressive that Brad Park led his team in scoring 10 years in a row, but simply that it would be no less impressive if he didn't, as long as his production was of the same level.

 

[hfboardsuser]

And having seen both play, I consider Park to be nearly equal to Chelios defensive, and superior offensively.

As for who I would pick?
Harvey/Orr without blinking. Harvey is the greatest Defensive Dman of all time, and Orr could play keepaway with the puck for minutes at a time.

Honestly, Park/Chelios would be the last 2 guys I pick from that list.

What about Langway? In a pure shutdown context, the man was a god who could influence GA at the rate of a goalie.

 

[Dark Shadows]

What about Langway? In a pure shutdown context, the man was a god who could influence GA at the rate of a goalie.

I consider Langway top 3 defensively, alongside Savard and Harvey.

Harvey was undisputed the best as far as I am concerned.

 

[hfboardsuser]

These kind of stats are arbitrary, and as a whole, fairly useless when put into context.

I understand fully that it's not entirely representative of a player's career, and I've never positioned it as such. However, every single stat can be influenced by this what-if game you're playing- it's not a hole that is unique to just this examination. Even the most stead-fast and traditional of stats- goals, assists, points- need to be put into context. Again, it's not a weakness that occurs just in breaking out the numbers like I did, and you're engaging in a false and dishonest debate by not acknowledging as such.

Ultimately, when it comes to hockey- and any other piece of history- every little bit you can squeeze out of the numbers you do have is useful.

As an example, look at the following 'useless' anecdote:

'Always a tremendous passer, Thornton became just the third player in NHL history after Hall of Famers Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux) to record consecutive 90-assist seasons.'

Now, no reasonable person is going to jump on that and claim Thornton is on the same plain as Gretzky and Mario. However, it provides for an interesting view of Thornton. I personally did not consider Thornton to be as good all-time as I did before I read that tidbit.

The same goes for Park. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe and Park are the only players to lead their teams in scoring at their position for 10+ years in a row. Again, I'm not going to run around yelling that Park = Gretzky/Howe/Lemieux. BUT, I am going to bring it up, because it's a useful bit of information to have. Yes, it takes tremendous odds/luck- but that cannot be the only factor. Why has no one else in the 100 years of the league done it, if that's the case?

 

[arrbez]

The same goes for Park. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe and Park are the only players to lead their teams in scoring at their position for 10+ years in a row. Again, I'm not going to run around yelling that Park = Gretzky/Howe/Lemieux. BUT, I am going to bring it up, because it's a useful bit of information to have. Yes, it takes tremendous odds/luck- but that cannot be the only factor. Why has no one else in the 100 years of the league done it, if that's the case?

Because of odds and luck, you answered it. Unless you would be suggesting that Park is the next best of those players (and I realize this is a hypothetical), then the only answer is odds and luck. It does not in any way make Park a better player, or a more impressive player. He would be just as impressive if he had Gretzky or Lemieux (or Orr or Coffey might be more appropriate) on his team, and came second every year with the same stats.

Just like Joe Thornton scoring 90 in back-to-back years isn't any more impressive than Adam Oates doing it twice in three years. Going 90-90-70 is absolutely no different than going 90-70-90, and to treat it as such is completely illogical. The point is that they both scored 90 twice, everything else arbitrarily being made to appear important because it fits into a nice pattern. They're fun and interesting stats, I quote them sometimes too, but they're ultimately worthless when put into context.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stats

The game is played with the objective of winning. Stats are a by product and should be treated as such.

The first question asked by those who did not see a game is "Who won?", not were there any interesting stats?

 

[FissionFire]

Park by that point was also playing on bum knees. He's quite possibly the unluckiest player ever...

I'd take Park by the way. And I wouldn't think twice about it. He could do anything Chelios could do, even be a little mean when the situation called for it, but he was a smarter player than Chelios. He also wasn't prone to idiotic penalties at crucial times in a game like Chelios.

For the record I like Chelios. He is one of my all time favourites.

Chelios also played a large chunk of his career with his ACL IIRC. It was only repaired within the last several years. I think you could say they both played on a bum knee.

 

[Loto68]

do you go with two strictly defensive bangers like Horton and Stevens

This is not really part of the debate, but, while I hate Scott Stevens, to classify him a strictly a banger is a disservice to his talent. In the first half of his career he was a top notch offensive defenseman. Ironically, when the Ranger and Devils played in the 94 playoffs, it was likely the only time in history that a conference finals involved two teams that had defensemen as their leading scorers, Zubov for the Rangers and Stevens for the Devils

 

[hfboardsuser]

The game is played with the objective of winning. Stats are a by product and should be treated as such.

The first question asked by those who did not see a game is "Who won?", not were there any interesting stats?

But that, too, can be skewed. Is Henri Richard a better player than Gretzky?

 

[Big Phil]

-Park was MVP of the Summit Series for Canada, while Chelios was a dominant international player for the USA for years, and years...and years, making the tournament all-star team in back-to-back Canada/World Cups, and captaining the national team on a number of occasions. BTW, why was Park not there for Canada in '76 or '81?

Park wasnt there for Canada in '76 because of injury IIRC. No doubt he makes the team over Jimmy Watson! As for '81, who knows? Granted he was slowing down a bit by then but that team was picked very weird to start with. Randy Carlyle wins the Norris and doesnt make the team? On forward Barber, McDonald, Sittler and others are cut? It was a weird team to start with. Park would have made my team that year

 

[Dark Shadows]

This is not really part of the debate, but, while I hate Scott Stevens, to classify him a strictly a banger is a disservice to his talent. In the first half of his career he was a top notch offensive defenseman. Ironically, when the Ranger and Devils played in the 94 playoffs, it was likely the only time in history that a conference finals involved two teams that had defensemen as their leading scorers, Zubov for the Rangers and Stevens for the Devils

In the question, its pretty clear he meant the Shutdown Dman Scott Stevens after he became a defensive expert.

Stevens before giving up his offense was not as good defensively as after.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

All well and good but the issue was shutdown d-men. Leo Boivin and Bob Baun had nasty hip checks but they were not shutdown d-men.

What were they then?

 

[Canadiens1958]

What were they then?

Steady, workman like.

 

[Boxscore]

I have Park over Chelios, but very close. IMO Park was all-around better but Cheli had the longevity, Cups and Norrises.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Steady, workman like.

It's nice to see a post from him.